Transnational adoption: pros and cons
(Note Nov. 18: Looking over this entry, I realize that it may have a more critical tone toward Lydia McGrew than I intended or that was desirable. So I say: I esteem and respect Lydia. She is top notch, top of the line. In this entry I am responding to the arguments she has presented on this issue, which, no matter how well intended or well-thought out they may be, lead, as I see it, in a Christian-liberal, national suicide direction.)
Picking up from an earlier thread at The Thinking Housewife that I linked here, there’s a big debate at What’s Wrong with the World between (mainly) Lydia McGrew and Laura Wood on transnational adoption. Lydia is all for it, she believes in the maximum number of adoptions that will take children from bad circumstances in a Third-World country to good circumstances in America. Laura, while supporting transnational adoption up to a point, thinks it is a problematic issue because of the racial/cultural confusions it produces. Lydia is entirely unsympathetic to Laura’s racial/cultural argument, and her policy seems to have no inherent limit. Since there’s an essentially infinite number of children in the Third World whose individual prospects would infinitely improve if they were brought to America and brought up by loving parents here, I can’t see how Lydia’s reasoning leads to anything other than the steady transformation of America into a racial hodgepodge of African, Asian, and Latin American-derived peoples and the marginalization of the white race. Once again we see how the Christianity of many Christians leads to racial and cultural consequences that are indistinguishable from those of liberalism.
A world in which couples in one country are adopting children of widely different race and culture from the other side of the world, and doing so in very large numbers—I’d say that that indicates Something Wrong With The World.
Bruce B. writes:
“Once again we see how the Christianity of many Christians leads to racial and cultural consequences that are indistinguishable from those of liberalism.”LA replies:
If that were the case, then we’d really be finished. But it’s not the case.Charles T. writes:
You wrote: “Once again we see how the Christianity of many Christians leads to racial and cultural consequences that are indistinguishable from those of liberalism. ”Leonard D. writes:
There is a strong inherent limit on the policy that Lydia McGrew is advocating: the desire of Americans for more children which they cannot conceive on their own. And also the energy and time it takes to raise children.LA replies:
You’re making reasonable-sounding distinctions, and let me say that I was not equating transnational adoption with immigration. However, there are significant similarities between them. What struck me was the absolute, unlimited character of the moral principle that Lydia was articulating. As long as there are any children anywhere in the world who would personally benefit from being adopted by an American couple, they should be adopted. With the open immigration advocates it’s a similar absolute moral principle: as long as any prospective immigrant in the world can personally improve his lot by coming to America, he should be allowed to come. (Or, as Bush sometimes put it, in economic rather than moral terms, so long as there are any prospective immigrants anywhere in the world who can undersell an American for a job, he should be allowed to come.) It becomes America’s responsibility to look out for the comparative well being of every person on earth. The principle is that America exists to transform itself for the sake of others (or for the sake of the economy).Jordan (the pen name of a long time commenter) writes:
Laura Wood is a keeper, isn’t she? I wish more American women were like her, but that’s not going to happen anytime soon. She is willing to tackle the big questions head on, without fear, bless her. The BIG question I have for her is: what is in it for white European-American women of today to become “race-conscious”? Right now they have the law on their side, complete freedom, equality (they are actually doing better then men economically, especially if you just look at the under-30s crowd), opportunity, and, best of all, enough remains of traditional culture that they at the same time can completely drop out of the rat race and decide to be mothers and stay at home without, unlike men, any loss of cultural and social status. To top it all off, they are also tops on the beauty scale, with men of all races agreeing that they are the most beautiful of women. Really, given those facts on the ground, why would white women fight for a return to traditionalism?Hannon writes:
This is a portion of a comment I left at 4W:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 17, 2009 12:57 AM | Send